2 ms·
I share your cynicism, but I think it's worth examining if IBM's cynical cop-out might also be true. Is it possible to develop facial recognition systems that
by catalogia 6y ago
I share your cynicism, but I think it's worth examining if IBM's cynical cop-out might also be true. Is it possible to develop facial recognition systems that couldn't be used for mass surveillance? Or, is it possible to develop mass surveillance systems that could only be used in the pursuit of moral (or at least morally neutral) goals?
I'm generally of the opinion that tools are intrinsically amoral; neither moral nor immoral. A hammer could be used to build an orphanage, or be used to hit orphans; it's an amoral tool that could be used for good or evil. But I think when tools become sufficiently powerful, that sort of perspective starts to break down. Weapons of mass destruction are good examples of this from the past century. Could there conceivably exist digital systems too powerful to consider morally neutral? Personally I think so, and I think facial recognition technology might qualify.
- baddox 6y agoAnd it would be worthy of public outrage if a tool manufacturer were supplying hammers to child abusers for the purpose of child abuse. The fact that hammers can also be used to construct buildings is completely irrelevant. This entire “tools are amoral” argument seems to deny the fact that in most cases we don’t need to judge the intrinsic morality of a particular tool, because we can just look at how the tool is actually being used.